Hacker News Reader

Comment by qha34h | Hacker News Reader

I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not. For example, you cannot just use public material with recognizable people in advertisements without their consent.

Meta is likely to use material from these spy devices to build real world networks and use it commercially.

These "glasses" should be outlawed. The only useful purpose is to immediately identify the wearer as an asshole.

View on HN

Is it really true that commercial use of film taken from public places is not allowed without consent? Is there a case law or a specific statute on this? Would love to read more.

True, in California, for advertising or sales purposes. Probably other states too. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

What if people are recognizable but more in the background? Isn't that fair use?

Are far as I can tell: people in the footage can collect damages as long as they're identifiable. Meaning that you could easily tell afterwards that the complainant is the one in the footage used. So a shot of a sports crowd is probably okay, though I imagine they have people sign off on some kind of T&C that covers that anyway. On the other hand walking-down-the-street footage you would need releases from those people.

Assuming you mean in the United Stares, can you cite a specific law or court case to support your position?

It occurs to me that the existence of paparazzi seems to be evidence against your position.

Not federal, but this: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/ To be clear by 'commercial purposes', it's advertising/promotion/marketing. Paparazzi photos would be alright by that bar. I presume the idea is to avoid any implied endorsement by those photographed.

It's called the right of publicity. Basically the idea that you're entitled to compensation to for commercial use of your likeness. AFAIK, you always have to be recognizable to sue over it as you have to see your likeness, and damages would be pretty minor if you're not famous or an actor anyway. It depends on the state but generally it does have to be in advertising.

Paparazzi get sued for crossing lines all the time. Good ones know exactly how far they can push the boundary and are careful to stay close to it

> I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not

As a general statement about the law this is not correct. And that’s even before we get to the next paragraph where you just wildly speculate and use that as buttressing the already false premise.

So should smartphone cameras be illegal as well? Or cameras of every kind?

Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?

If you're a TikToker, absolutely

I'm surprised it took this long but two weeks ago I saw my first live streamer at a flea market. He was wearing some type of camera on his head (can't tell which one) and had his phone mounted like a wristwatch to read chat notifications. It was like that old Penny Arcade's strip about Glassholes come to life [1].

He was definitely filming everyone without our consent.

[1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshol

The link is missing an e: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole

“Hey security, I think that guy was filming young girls. Please eject him.”

TikTokers aren't exactly the gold standards of society nor is being a TikToker a free card to violate people's privacy though. What's to say if someone confronts and requests the TikToker to stop recording them without their permission?

They just... don't stop. What're you gonna do, take away the camera, hit them? Then they have great content and can sue you for assault. There's millions of people out there that are filming without consent every single day, for content.

> What're you gonna do, take away the camera, hit them?

A lot of people have done this, because at that point it's consciously making a decision to be an asshole and violating someone's privacy. The laws may not be on the side of the guy who hits the TikToker - and that's what they capitalize on, but morally, the guy throwing the punch would be in the right. It also depends on where you live, I guess. TikTokers don't normally do such stuff in Asia because you can go to the cops and file assault, but when they find out you were being the douche, they will not take any action.

Public photography is not a crime.

* a negative is: the opportunities to enjoy oneself have sadly diminished...do one 'strange' thing in public, and you're on the web.

Public photography isn't a crime, but then again it's very nuanced. If I'm taking a portrait of a park, where people are having picnics, it seems "less targeted", if you know what I mean. Whereas walking with a phone or camera in your hand pointing directly at people's faces feels not really right.

The best way to do this would be how Google solved this with street view. Capture your public photos, blur out people's faces - better yet, respect their privacy if someone requests to not film them. Eg. Google Street view will blur out complete homes if you decide to opt out.

It’s practically impossible to take pictures of a famous monument without having other people in the frame (usually they’re posing for photos themselves). AI can remove them, with varying degrees of success.

Ironically, it would probably be easier for the AI to generate the photo of the monument without the people. I mean, for famous monuments, whatever photo you're about to take, you could find 10 better ones already on-line, taken from the same point and perspective, and uploaded to Flickr or Instagram or wherenot.

Weren’t Samsung phones doing something like this? If you tried to take a picture with the moon in it, it would just generate an image of the moon?

So smartphone cameras should be banned nationwide depending on whether I personally record people without their consent or not?

Are all commercial uses illegal or only those that display your likeness?

A news broadcast for a commercially run news network does not need releases nor does it need to compensate people who walk through the background.

Likewise, journalistic photographs (for commercial use) are legal and don't require releases or compensation for people who are part of the scene.

https://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf (note the credentials in the lower right corner - and if you want to know more I'd suggest https://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm )

    The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com